The need for Jackson to resort to such an absurd hypothetical demonstrates why the correct outcome should be a win for Missouri.
She might well have said "what if there is a viral craze of teens challenging each other to eat laundry detergent pods!?!!!"
But of course, that one really happened, the uptake was predictably limited by common sense and the counter programming handled without a constitutional dispute over government suppression of the first amendment.
This current dispute is about the regime's willingness to abuse its power and the regime needs a severe smacking around.
Thinking about this further, Roger's take above and many comments below.
This case is NOT about whether the government is allowed to combat false information as per the nonsensical examples from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Of course they are allowed to fight misinformation, false information, foreign influence, etc etc.
The issue is "how" they are doing it.
What we have seen again and again is narrative control not defending facts and fighting misinformation. Instead in a lot of cases this is about "mal-information" which are true facts they don't happen to like, such as the covid shots don't stop transmission and closing schools is bad and there is no current climate emergency (which is leading to the largest misallocation of capital in human history, is that a "small" problem guys? $$$Trillions in wasted spending?)
If they want to slap Roger Pielkie Jr down for posting that the IPCC WG1 data doesn't show a climate emergency, then they can come with facts and convince people he is wrong.
But of course they don't have facts that show there is a climate emergency so instead they will work behind the scenes to blackball him instead.
As they have in the past
Basically a star chamber, no debate, no right of appeal because of course Roger would not even know he is being shadow banned or throttled and that no one is even seeing his arguments. They have essentially locked him in a prison.
I really appreciate the depth of thinking, Roger. I finally upgraded to paid…I should have long ago. One thing I don’t understand…why don’t some people use their real names when posting comments? If one truly believes what one types, why not stand behind it? The rudest and most absurd comments come from people without real names. Wonder why?
Roger, I disagree with you on this one. There indeed is a huge "disinformation industrial complex" that has been formed of government agencies, and non-government agencies receiving government grants, to influence public opinion by censoring unapproved narratives. Call me cynical, but in my experience some politicians will push the envelope as far as they can to control these narratives, in there interest of their own greed and desire for power. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with right vs. left or Democrat vs. Republican.
I recommend checking out the related posts on Public, Micheal Shellenberger's substack. His work there on exposing the censor-industrial complex is very worthwhile.
Dear Roger, the diagram you start with is developed by several authors in the 1980s. See the book "Risk and Culture"by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1983). At page 4 they refer to 'Approaches to acceptable risk: a critical guide' by Fischhoff, Lichtenstein and Slovic where they state: "Values and uncertainties are an integral part of every acceptable-risk problem." Then, at page 5, Douglas and Wildavsky basically offer the same diagram you ascribe to Funtowics and Ravetz.
Of course the government can reasonably say what they hope people believe or do, but they should not be allowed to apply pressure to specifics companies. This distinction is clear to me and I'm surprised it was not considered.
It appears I'm late to this party. Nevertheless, I wish to try to introduce some clarity into the situation. As an example, let's say I have a sign on my property that takes a certain position which the local government deems is not conducive to advancing the majority opinion. Let's also say I have separately metered power that illuminates only the sign. Because the position does not advance the governing agenda, the city demands the utility limit power to the sign to between the hours 3am and 4am because the sign is a "distraction to traffic". I hold that this is what has occurred. Internet service providers are utilities. They are the power to the signs we place in our yards and, as such have very limited rights to what posts they deny. They are either publishers or they are utilities. They cannot be both. Let's take the question of kids jumping from buildings, does the government have an interest in limiting the spread if this information? If it's actions are legitimate for an isp, they're legitimate for a newscast, newspaper or... a sign in my yard. Indeed, it could be argued they are legitimate for a conference call or any other venue where there is no expectation if privacy.
"The Virality Project primarily focused on so-called “anti-vaccine” “misinformation”, however, my Twitter Files investigations with Matt Taibbi revealed this included “true stories of vaccine side effects.”
A further review of the content flagged by the Virality Project demonstrates how they pushed social media platforms to censor such “true stories”. This was often done incompetently and without even a cursory investigation of the original sources. In one instance, the Virality Project reporters told platforms that reports of a child injured in a vaccine trial were “false” due to the timing; citing the dates of a Moderna trial when in fact the child had been in a Pfizer trial.
Trigger-happy researchers-turned-activists at the Virality Project went further, alerting their BigTech partners (including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok) of protests, jokes, and general dissent."
I agree the plaintiff's lawyer's answer to the hypothetical left a lot to be desired. He would have been better off explaining in the context of the simplicity of the hypothetical vs what actually happened in the case. In some ways, what they did was turn standing science on its head and reverse well known science - like that masks don't work for respiratory infections - and then the govt suppressed the voices stating the established science. Like if they suddenly let a bunch of people say you could jump from higher and higher heights because Covid changed everything.
In the US there is a strong presumption that free speech is a good thing. It is the first amendment for that reason. The Missouri case may not be perfect but it is the result of what seems to be clear abuse of power by the federal authorities.
Having the government pressure anyone to remove content is bad. It is even worse if the government does this secretly instead of openly. Even the jumping out of windows one. Even (and this is my $dayjob) taking down scammers, phishers and other criminal websites etc.
I am in fact particularly irritated at the way CISA's original intent - information sharing about cyber attacks/crimes - mutated into information sharing about "misinformation" and the like. The US (the world) needs a trusted neutral party that can disseminate information about active criminal activity so that this can be neutralized because the problem with the Internet is that people in Nigeria or China can quickly and easily put up websites in, say, Moldova and send emails/SMSes to pensioners in Peoria convincing them that they need to go to the Moldovan website and give up critical information/transfer money etc. Standard law enforcement actions (arrests etc.) are unable to cope with the speed of the Internet and the multiple legal jurisdictions involved. CISA should have been the place where anyone in the cybersecurity space could a) report new threats they have observed and b) get information about new threats others have observed that they can use to stop attacks. By commingling actual criminal activity with "misinformation" CISA has broken trust and once you lose trust you really can't get it back.
The hypothetical about underage children encouraged to commit suicide is poor for two reasons. There are already laws about not inciting violence, and framing this as a game should not distract. And as others have pointed out, a parallel non-lethal but still irreversible harm, raised no flags for the watchdogs, who in stead went after those raising objections with concerning efficacy. It is the lack of transparency in the government and NGO pressures that concerns me, because it is then so much easier and convenient to just yield to it, even if the threat of actual government sanctions may seem theoretical or remote at the time. If this is not a test case for that, what will be?
Jackson's hypothetical was not very clever and I am surprised the plaintiff's lawyer didn't have an adequate response. There would be nothing wrong with the government openly and publicly warning of the dangers of teens jumping out windows nor with them openly and publicly asking social media organizations to help. (It's a ridiculous premise BTW but what the hell).
The hypothetical doesn't address what happened here. The government set up a secret system asking for posts deemed objectionable to be removed. Elon Musk revealed there was a portal between twitter and the FBI that automatically deleted all posts after 2 weeks. Does anyone think this should be legal?
The need for Jackson to resort to such an absurd hypothetical demonstrates why the correct outcome should be a win for Missouri.
She might well have said "what if there is a viral craze of teens challenging each other to eat laundry detergent pods!?!!!"
But of course, that one really happened, the uptake was predictably limited by common sense and the counter programming handled without a constitutional dispute over government suppression of the first amendment.
This current dispute is about the regime's willingness to abuse its power and the regime needs a severe smacking around.
Thinking about this further, Roger's take above and many comments below.
This case is NOT about whether the government is allowed to combat false information as per the nonsensical examples from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Of course they are allowed to fight misinformation, false information, foreign influence, etc etc.
The issue is "how" they are doing it.
What we have seen again and again is narrative control not defending facts and fighting misinformation. Instead in a lot of cases this is about "mal-information" which are true facts they don't happen to like, such as the covid shots don't stop transmission and closing schools is bad and there is no current climate emergency (which is leading to the largest misallocation of capital in human history, is that a "small" problem guys? $$$Trillions in wasted spending?)
If they want to slap Roger Pielkie Jr down for posting that the IPCC WG1 data doesn't show a climate emergency, then they can come with facts and convince people he is wrong.
But of course they don't have facts that show there is a climate emergency so instead they will work behind the scenes to blackball him instead.
As they have in the past
Basically a star chamber, no debate, no right of appeal because of course Roger would not even know he is being shadow banned or throttled and that no one is even seeing his arguments. They have essentially locked him in a prison.
Surely all can see this?
I'm disappointed in so many people these days.
I knew virtually nothing about this case before today. As Rod Serling (probably dating myself? ;-)) would say:
"Offered for your consideration"
https://www.justsecurity.org/93487/a-conspiracy-theory-goes-to-the-supreme-court-how-did-murthy-v-missouri-get-this-far/
I really appreciate the depth of thinking, Roger. I finally upgraded to paid…I should have long ago. One thing I don’t understand…why don’t some people use their real names when posting comments? If one truly believes what one types, why not stand behind it? The rudest and most absurd comments come from people without real names. Wonder why?
Should we really all act alike? I'm not so sure.
Roger, I disagree with you on this one. There indeed is a huge "disinformation industrial complex" that has been formed of government agencies, and non-government agencies receiving government grants, to influence public opinion by censoring unapproved narratives. Call me cynical, but in my experience some politicians will push the envelope as far as they can to control these narratives, in there interest of their own greed and desire for power. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with right vs. left or Democrat vs. Republican.
I recommend checking out the related posts on Public, Micheal Shellenberger's substack. His work there on exposing the censor-industrial complex is very worthwhile.
Dear Roger, the diagram you start with is developed by several authors in the 1980s. See the book "Risk and Culture"by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1983). At page 4 they refer to 'Approaches to acceptable risk: a critical guide' by Fischhoff, Lichtenstein and Slovic where they state: "Values and uncertainties are an integral part of every acceptable-risk problem." Then, at page 5, Douglas and Wildavsky basically offer the same diagram you ascribe to Funtowics and Ravetz.
Of course the government can reasonably say what they hope people believe or do, but they should not be allowed to apply pressure to specifics companies. This distinction is clear to me and I'm surprised it was not considered.
It appears I'm late to this party. Nevertheless, I wish to try to introduce some clarity into the situation. As an example, let's say I have a sign on my property that takes a certain position which the local government deems is not conducive to advancing the majority opinion. Let's also say I have separately metered power that illuminates only the sign. Because the position does not advance the governing agenda, the city demands the utility limit power to the sign to between the hours 3am and 4am because the sign is a "distraction to traffic". I hold that this is what has occurred. Internet service providers are utilities. They are the power to the signs we place in our yards and, as such have very limited rights to what posts they deny. They are either publishers or they are utilities. They cannot be both. Let's take the question of kids jumping from buildings, does the government have an interest in limiting the spread if this information? If it's actions are legitimate for an isp, they're legitimate for a newscast, newspaper or... a sign in my yard. Indeed, it could be argued they are legitimate for a conference call or any other venue where there is no expectation if privacy.
It is worth looking at what was actually censored - see this recent substack: https://networkaffects.substack.com/p/stanfords-virality-project-pushed
"The Virality Project primarily focused on so-called “anti-vaccine” “misinformation”, however, my Twitter Files investigations with Matt Taibbi revealed this included “true stories of vaccine side effects.”
A further review of the content flagged by the Virality Project demonstrates how they pushed social media platforms to censor such “true stories”. This was often done incompetently and without even a cursory investigation of the original sources. In one instance, the Virality Project reporters told platforms that reports of a child injured in a vaccine trial were “false” due to the timing; citing the dates of a Moderna trial when in fact the child had been in a Pfizer trial.
Trigger-happy researchers-turned-activists at the Virality Project went further, alerting their BigTech partners (including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok) of protests, jokes, and general dissent."
I agree the plaintiff's lawyer's answer to the hypothetical left a lot to be desired. He would have been better off explaining in the context of the simplicity of the hypothetical vs what actually happened in the case. In some ways, what they did was turn standing science on its head and reverse well known science - like that masks don't work for respiratory infections - and then the govt suppressed the voices stating the established science. Like if they suddenly let a bunch of people say you could jump from higher and higher heights because Covid changed everything.
In the US there is a strong presumption that free speech is a good thing. It is the first amendment for that reason. The Missouri case may not be perfect but it is the result of what seems to be clear abuse of power by the federal authorities.
Having the government pressure anyone to remove content is bad. It is even worse if the government does this secretly instead of openly. Even the jumping out of windows one. Even (and this is my $dayjob) taking down scammers, phishers and other criminal websites etc.
I am in fact particularly irritated at the way CISA's original intent - information sharing about cyber attacks/crimes - mutated into information sharing about "misinformation" and the like. The US (the world) needs a trusted neutral party that can disseminate information about active criminal activity so that this can be neutralized because the problem with the Internet is that people in Nigeria or China can quickly and easily put up websites in, say, Moldova and send emails/SMSes to pensioners in Peoria convincing them that they need to go to the Moldovan website and give up critical information/transfer money etc. Standard law enforcement actions (arrests etc.) are unable to cope with the speed of the Internet and the multiple legal jurisdictions involved. CISA should have been the place where anyone in the cybersecurity space could a) report new threats they have observed and b) get information about new threats others have observed that they can use to stop attacks. By commingling actual criminal activity with "misinformation" CISA has broken trust and once you lose trust you really can't get it back.
The hypothetical about underage children encouraged to commit suicide is poor for two reasons. There are already laws about not inciting violence, and framing this as a game should not distract. And as others have pointed out, a parallel non-lethal but still irreversible harm, raised no flags for the watchdogs, who in stead went after those raising objections with concerning efficacy. It is the lack of transparency in the government and NGO pressures that concerns me, because it is then so much easier and convenient to just yield to it, even if the threat of actual government sanctions may seem theoretical or remote at the time. If this is not a test case for that, what will be?
Jackson's hypothetical was not very clever and I am surprised the plaintiff's lawyer didn't have an adequate response. There would be nothing wrong with the government openly and publicly warning of the dangers of teens jumping out windows nor with them openly and publicly asking social media organizations to help. (It's a ridiculous premise BTW but what the hell).
The hypothetical doesn't address what happened here. The government set up a secret system asking for posts deemed objectionable to be removed. Elon Musk revealed there was a portal between twitter and the FBI that automatically deleted all posts after 2 weeks. Does anyone think this should be legal?
And sometimes experts are either knowingly or unknowingly wrong, too!